Share this story

A conservative media company has sued YouTube, saying that the online video giant illegally censors the short videos it produces.

PragerU was founded in 2011 by Dennis Prager, a prominent conservative writer and radio talk show host. The organization is a nonprofit that espouses conservative viewpoints on various issues by means of short, animated videos, which it posts on its own website, as well as its YouTube channel.

"Google/YouTube have represented that their platforms and services are intended to effectuate the exercise free speech among the public," write PragerU lawyers in the organization's complaint (PDF), filed Monday. "As applied to PragerU, Google/YouTube use their restricted mode filtering not to protect younger or sensitive viewers from 'inappropriate' video content, but as a political gag mechanism to silence PragerU."

PragerU says that at least 37 of its videos continue to be censored by "restricted mode filtering," which limits views based on certain characteristics, including the age of the viewer. Those videos include "educational content ranging from the legal creation of Israel and the history of the Korean War, to the idea of diversity of thought on college campuses."

YouTube's actions are "absurd, arbitrary, capricious, and devoid of any rational basis," the lawsuit states. The lawsuit cites cases like Fashion Valley Mall v. National Labor Relations Board, in which the California Supreme Court allowed protesters to pass out leaflets on mall property, even though they were advocating for boycotts of certain stores.

Another precedent PragerU points to is Marsh v. Alabama, a US Supreme Court case in which a Jehovah's Witness was handing out religious pamphlets on the sidewalk in Chickasaw, a privately owned "company town" near Mobile. The high court ruled that Grace Marsh had a right to hand out pamphlets even though the sidewalk she stood on was owned by a private corporation.

The lawsuit includes a long list of PragerU videos that have been restricted or "demonetized" by YouTube, and it lists videos on similar topics that have not been restricted. For instance, PragerU claims its YouTube video "Are the police racist?" was restricted or demonetized, but it points to a list of six other videos related to police behavior and racism that weren't restricted.

Conservatives aren't the only ones who feel that YouTube has censored or demonetized their videos. Earlier this year, a British YouTuber who made videos with a "feminist and queer perspective" complained that her videos were being filtered into a restricted mode and were marked as "potentially inappropriate content."

"We believe they are engaging in an arbitrary and capricious use of their ‘restricted mode’ and ‘demonetization’ to restrict conservative political thought," said PragerU founder Dennis Prager in a statement (PDF) about the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that YouTube's policy violates the First Amendment, the California Constitution's right to free speech and California civil rights laws, and the Lanham Act, which bars unfair competition.

679 Reader Comments

Here, Mr. "simple logic": does being white make you a member of a protected class, yes or no?

You keep acting as if that was somehow part of my argument. The argument is that everyone is protected from discrimination due to race. So laws that protect everyone protect the public. Is that really that hard to understand, or are you just locked in that line of discussion because you have no way of refuting my original suggestion?

Everyone has a skin color. You can't have a protected class that protects everyone, then it is called the public.

Yes. Everyone has a skin color. And everyone is protected from being discriminated against because of that skin color, no matter what that skin color happens to be.

Again, that you don't understand even this basic concept should probably help you understand how hopelessly uneducated you are on the matter you're trying to opine about.

I understand that completely, it is you that doesn't understand.

If you have a class that includes everyone, then it is no longer a subgroup (or class). So laws that protect discrimination based on class, are laws that protect EVERYONE. In other words they are laws that protect the public. Was that simple enough for you?

Err, no

The Class is not "People who have a Race". The class is "Characteristics indicative of race".

You can discriminate against someone based on age, on the fact they're a bad credit risk, or that they don't know how to ski. You can't discriminate on them where that discrimination is based on a protected class of characteristics, like race.

OK - find someone that doesn't have "Characteristics indicative of race". The person would have to look like one of those silver abstract mannequins. Get real.

Is the government ordering the filtering? If not, then no, it doesn't.

So the "don't want to make a cake for the gay wedding" guy is in the clear?

That wasn't content filtering. He wasn't refusing to create certain content, he was refusing to sell it to certain people. If would have made the exact same cake and sold it to other people, and the only difference between the customers is sexual orientation, that (in Colorado) is unlawful discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

And that's what the case turned on. He wasn't refusing to make certain content. He wasn't refusing to make a flaming rainbow cake. He wouldn't even entertain selling them a traditional wedding cake, identical to ones he made before. So it obviously wasn't about content at all, it was about the class of customer, and that's the difference.

I would say it was more about the event is was for....

Except the baker isn't being asked to participate in an event, they're being asked to bake a cake. And if they advertise to the general public that they bake cakes, they have to sell those cakes to the general public. It's that simple, that's how the law actually works, and the law ignores the "event" because cake baking has nothing to do with the event where it's happening.

Have you ever gone in a bakery and picked out a cake, and been asked, "Before I sell this to you, what's it for?" Ever?

I wonder how many people here have actually viewed any of the videos. I know one or two did, but I suspect most did not. The ones I saw were well done.

Their videos are slick, but the ones I've seen are terribly misleading.

That doesn't justify censoring them, and I find the willingness of liberals to jump on the censorship bandwagon pretty terrifying. These sorts of measures swing both ways, and tomorrow it may be someone I like being censored.

I'm giving you a thumbs up for actually opposing censoring of content you don't agree with. That shows principles.

Everyone has a skin color. You can't have a protected class that protects everyone, then it is called the public.

Yes. Everyone has a skin color. And everyone is protected from being discriminated against because of that skin color, no matter what that skin color happens to be.

Again, that you don't understand even this basic concept should probably help you understand how hopelessly uneducated you are on the matter you're trying to opine about.

I understand that completely, it is you that doesn't understand.

If you have a class that includes everyone, then it is no longer a subgroup (or class). So laws that protect discrimination based on class, are laws that protect EVERYONE. In other words they are laws that protect the public. Was that simple enough for you?

Err, no

The Class is not "People who have a Race". The class is "Characteristics indicative of race".

You can discriminate against someone based on age, on the fact they're a bad credit risk, or that they don't know how to ski. You can't discriminate on them where that discrimination is based on a protected class of characteristics, like race.

OK - find someone that doesn't have "Characteristics indicative of race". The person would have to look like one of those silver abstract mannequins. Get real.

You're missing the point. "People with a characteristic indicative of race" isn't the class either. We are not talking about a subset of people.

Its the characteristic itself that is the class. Not all characteristics are protected classes, racial characteristics are in the protected class. Its a subset of characteristics not people.

Is the government ordering the filtering? If not, then no, it doesn't.

So the "don't want to make a cake for the gay wedding" guy is in the clear?

That wasn't content filtering. He wasn't refusing to create certain content, he was refusing to sell it to certain people. If would have made the exact same cake and sold it to other people, and the only difference between the customers is sexual orientation, that (in Colorado) is unlawful discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

And that's what the case turned on. He wasn't refusing to make certain content. He wasn't refusing to make a flaming rainbow cake. He wouldn't even entertain selling them a traditional wedding cake, identical to ones he made before. So it obviously wasn't about content at all, it was about the class of customer, and that's the difference.

I would say it was more about the event is was for....

Except the baker isn't being asked to participate in an event, they're being asked to bake a cake. And if they advertise to the general public that they bake cakes, they have to sell those cakes to the general public. It's that simple, that's how the law actually works, and the law ignores the "event" because cake baking has nothing to do with the event where it's happening.

Have you ever gone in a bakery and picked out a cake, and been asked, "Before I sell this to you, what's it for?" Ever?

Everyone has a skin color. You can't have a protected class that protects everyone, then it is called the public.

Yes. Everyone has a skin color. And everyone is protected from being discriminated against because of that skin color, no matter what that skin color happens to be.

Again, that you don't understand even this basic concept should probably help you understand how hopelessly uneducated you are on the matter you're trying to opine about.

I understand that completely, it is you that doesn't understand.

If you have a class that includes everyone, then it is no longer a subgroup (or class). So laws that protect discrimination based on class, are laws that protect EVERYONE. In other words they are laws that protect the public. Was that simple enough for you?

Err, no

The Class is not "People who have a Race". The class is "Characteristics indicative of race".

You can discriminate against someone based on age, on the fact they're a bad credit risk, or that they don't know how to ski. You can't discriminate on them where that discrimination is based on a protected class of characteristics, like race.

OK - find someone that doesn't have "Characteristics indicative of race". The person would have to look like one of those silver abstract mannequins. Get real.

You're missing the point. "People with a characteristic indicative of race" isn't the class either. We are not talking about a subset of people.

Its the characteristic itself that is the class. Not all characteristics are protected classes, racial characteristics are in the protected class. Its a subset of characteristics not people.

The thing is that everyone has racial characteristics. Everything from the shape of your eyes, to the color of your skin to the width of your nose is relate to you race or combination of races. So the set of people that have racial characteristics is everyone.

Oh, your MBA? How awe-inspiring. I'm certain your education for that is in every way equivalent to actual legal training. You're digging deeper into Dunning-Kruger and you don't even know it.

Quote:

But instead of trying to actually discuss this in a rational manner you want to keep putting up false roadblocks and smokescreens.

Asking you to substantiate the claim that you made is a "smokescreen"? Yeah, okay kiddo.

Quote:

Most people here know that anti-trust laws exist and there address market behavior of large corporations. (as well as some other behaviors).

The existence of these laws isn't in question. You have claimed they apply to this case. I have asked you to substantiate that with specific references. You have, like a coward, refused to do so, and called me asking for specifics a "smokescreen".

Quote:

Most here know that anti-discrimination laws exists and they address issues relating to hiring and some other issue. We don't need that clause and line to discuss my suggestion.

Well, as you've demonstrated you don't actually understand those things, it might be helpful if you actually did, because you clearly don't understand them.

Quote:

You are just putting up false blocks because you have no legitimate argument.

My argument is that you need to cite to a specific part of the law before anyone can even discuss whether your claim has any merit. That you're too chickenshit to do so is your own fault, sunshine, not mine. You cite the specifics, and I'm happy to either agree or refute with actual citations myself.

That's fine. Ignoring me doesn't stop me from refuting your complete lack of knowledge. I don't think that you have the intellect or introspection necessary to educate yourself. Ignoring me accomplishes nothing, as my real audience is other people who read your drivel. They'll know how dumb you look, regardless of whether you read it.

Quote:

FYI: trying to hide insults in obscure terms is lame.

It's a fairly well known term that describes someone with a low amount of information on a subject being disproportionately certain that their interpretation of something is accurate. By converse, someone actually well-educated on something is more likely to understand the complexity of a subject, and recognize the limits of their knowledge.

Sort of like, I don't know...a person claiming their MBA education is superior to actual legal education and practice? And steadfastly insisting they're correct, despite not having the intellectual honesty or courage to actually go look things up for themselves?

The funny thing is that you have been a fantastic opportunity to prove me wrong. I don't think you're smart enough to avoid the trap of responding without educating yourself to the point that you can cite specifics and actually stop dancing around.

The thing is that everyone has racial characteristics. Everything from the shape of your eyes, to the color of your skin to the width of your nose is relate to you race or combination of races. So the set of people that have racial characteristics is everyone.

So then...yes, being white makes you part of a protected class? The very thing you said wasn't true?

The thing is that everyone has racial characteristics. Everything from the shape of your eyes, to the color of your skin to the width of your nose is relate to you race or combination of races. So the set of people that have racial characteristics is everyone.

Yes, everyone does. And your point is?

The protection isn’t about a subset of people, but a subset of characteristics it’s possible to discriminate on. Everyone can either ski, or not ski, but skiing ability is not a protected class even though everyone has either the can ski or can’t ski characteristic.

Except the baker isn't being asked to participate in an event, they're being asked to bake a cake. And if they advertise to the general public that they bake cakes, they have to sell those cakes to the general public. It's that simple, that's how the law actually works, and the law ignores the "event" because cake baking has nothing to do with the event where it's happening.

Have you ever gone in a bakery and picked out a cake, and been asked, "Before I sell this to you, what's it for?" Ever?

Cute. But seriously... bakeries have been making cakes for a very long time for a variety of events, and nobody has ever confused cake-baking with event participation before.

Serious question, I want your actual serious answer to: If a mixed-race couple came in to buy a birthday cake, and the baker said, "I'm sorry, I don't participate in birthdays for interracial children," does refusing the cake sale actually have anything to do with the boy's birthday party? In what way is this not just "refusing to sell a cake to an interracial couple" which is illegal?

Oh, your MBA? How awe-inspiring. I'm certain your education for that is in every way equivalent to actual legal training. You're digging deeper into Dunning-Kruger and you don't even know it.

Quote:

But instead of trying to actually discuss this in a rational manner you want to keep putting up false roadblocks and smokescreens.

Asking you to substantiate the claim that you made is a "smokescreen"? Yeah, okay kiddo.

Quote:

Most people here know that anti-trust laws exist and there address market behavior of large corporations. (as well as some other behaviors).

The existence of these laws isn't in question. You have claimed they apply to this case. I have asked you to substantiate that with specific references. You have, like a coward, refused to do so, and called me asking for specifics a "smokescreen".

Quote:

Most here know that anti-discrimination laws exists and they address issues relating to hiring and some other issue. We don't need that clause and line to discuss my suggestion.

Well, as you've demonstrated you don't actually understand those things, it might be helpful if you actually did, because you clearly don't understand them.

Quote:

You are just putting up false blocks because you have no legitimate argument.

My argument is that you need to cite to a specific part of the law before anyone can even discuss whether your claim has any merit. That you're too chickenshit to do so is your own fault, sunshine, not mine. You cite the specifics, and I'm happy to either agree or refute with actual citations myself.

That's fine. Ignoring me doesn't stop me from refuting your complete lack of knowledge. I don't think that you have the intellect or introspection necessary to educate yourself. Ignoring me accomplishes nothing, as my real audience is other people who read your drivel. They'll know how dumb you look, regardless of whether you read it.

Quote:

FYI: trying to hide insults in obscure terms is lame.

It's a fairly well known term that describes someone with a low amount of information on a subject being disproportionately certain that their interpretation of something is accurate. By converse, someone actually well-educated on something is more likely to understand the complexity of a subject, and recognize the limits of their knowledge.

Sort of like, I don't know...a person claiming their MBA education is superior to actual legal education and practice? And steadfastly insisting they're correct, despite not having the intellectual honesty or courage to actually go look things up for themselves?

The funny thing is that you have been a fantastic opportunity to prove me wrong. I don't think you're smart enough to avoid the trap of responding without educating yourself to the point that you can cite specifics and actually stop dancing around.

Care to prove me wrong?

You STILL have not tried to refute my initial argument. You keep trying to redirect the discussion away from the original topic. While I don't have legal training, I do know that redirecting an argument away from a losing position is a common tactic.

For those trying to follow, a summary of my original argument is: when a social media company get so large they basically control a market, we should have laws in place that assures freedom of speech on those sites. We have laws in place that restrict large businesses when they have control of economic markets. We also have laws in place that restrict the right of association for all business. Laws relating to restriction on censorship would be along the same lines.

Except the baker isn't being asked to participate in an event, they're being asked to bake a cake. And if they advertise to the general public that they bake cakes, they have to sell those cakes to the general public. It's that simple, that's how the law actually works, and the law ignores the "event" because cake baking has nothing to do with the event where it's happening.

Have you ever gone in a bakery and picked out a cake, and been asked, "Before I sell this to you, what's it for?" Ever?

Cute. But seriously... bakeries have been making cakes for a very long time for a variety of events, and nobody has ever confused cake-baking with event participation before.

Serious question, I want your actual serious answer to: If a mixed-race couple came in to buy a birthday cake, and the baker said, "I'm sorry, I don't participate in birthdays for interracial children," does refusing the cake sale actually have anything to do with the boy's birthday party? In what way is this not just "refusing to sell a cake to an interracial couple" which is illegal?

As the law is currently interpreted both.... And and both people are probably jerks. But many artisans consider there work as an extension of them... So the cake participating in the wedding is the same as them participating. Look at other more liberal artists such as the Rolling Stones.. They didn't perform or write songs specifically for a Trump ralley , but when one of their disks was plopped in for a ralley they were really offended. Their work their songs their voice were being used to support something they didn't believe in. I really see no difference other then record producers have lobbiests writing copyright law and individual bakers don't.

The thing is that everyone has racial characteristics. Everything from the shape of your eyes, to the color of your skin to the width of your nose is relate to you race or combination of races. So the set of people that have racial characteristics is everyone.

Yes, everyone does. And your point is?

The protection isn’t about a subset of people, but a subset of characteristics it’s possible to discriminate on. Everyone can either ski, or not ski, but skiing ability is not a protected class even though everyone has either the can ski or can’t ski characteristic.

This all goes back to my statement that anti-discrimination benefit the public. You guys diverted the conversation to this garbage.

For those trying to follow, a summary of my original argument is: when a social media company get so large they basically control a market, we should have laws in place that assures freedom of speech on those sites.

If you're arguing that there "should" be laws, that's a different discussion, and you wouldn't have cited to the Sherman Antitrust Act, because that's a law that exists, not one that should exist. So which is it? Is Google violating an actual law that exists, or do you think the law should change to make what they're doing illegal?

Quote:

We have laws in place that restrict large businesses when they have control of economic markets. We also have laws in place that restrict the right of association for all business. Laws relating to restriction on censorship would be along the same lines.

Yeah, this is a stupidly broad argument that doesn't actually seem to rest on any specific laws. You're talking in generalities because you don't have any clue about the things you're talking about.

But let's go down this road. Should the most popular newspaper in the world be forced to print any letters to the editor that they are sent? No? But...that's centaur's ship! Should the largest advertising firms in the world be forced to make and sell ads for the KKK? No? But...that's centaur's ship! Where's the freeze peach?

I thank you for responding to me without actually being willing to cite to anything. I said that I don't think you're smart enough to avoid the trap of responding without educating yourself to the point that you can cite specifics and actually stop dancing around, and I'll be damned if you didn't help prove me right.

Is the government ordering the filtering? If not, then no, it doesn't.

And yet, this site will go haywire about a business refusing service to LGBTQ folks...

So you're saying that Google enforcing it's TOS is the exact same thing as violating the Civil Rights Act and the Constitution.

Please learn to think.

It's worth noting (with shock, but at the same time, of fucking course he'd do this...) that the trump DOJ is currently arguing that a bunch of the people that fall under the LGBTQ word salad aren't protected by the Civil Rights Act or Constitution.

Basically all this case means is, a state and company can't conspire to evade the First Amendment by outsourcing an entire town. It also means that people can't be arrested for trespassing for using publicly accessible sidewalks, which is a big part of why "gated communities" exist today.

While that's certainly all they decided in specific application, its far from the only base principle discussed in the Majority Opinion authored by Justice Black. This is especially revealing if you examine Justice Frankfurter's concurrence, which limits itself far more narrowly to the specific case of a company town.

Again, I think its very, VERY unlikely that any court is going to issue a decision expanding 1st Amendment protections in the way PragerU is seeking based on the Marsh v Alabama. But the underlying principles espoused in the Opinion of the Court do come up in the kind of cases they are trying to build off (like Fashion Valley).

It's worth noting that Black's admonition about balancing rights from the decision is a fairly weighty (if vague) fixture of academic writing on the subject:

"When we balance the Constitutional rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy freedom of press and religion, as we must here, we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position."

I don't think we disagree. I was talking about what the case stands for as a whole, which considers Frankfurter's concurrence and its impact. This was one of those cases (there are a few different lines of these) where SCOTUS looks at what was happening and says the Constitution applies to activity substantially similar to traditionally regulated activities.

Hence, this is really specific to company towns because they resemble municipalities, which were already subject to the First/Fourteenth Amendments. Which is why this logic doesn't work for YouTube here (and didn't work when someone tried to apply it to AOL way back in the 1990s). YouTube/AOL are not private equivalents of existing public bodies or exercising power equivalent to state or municipal power.

That's the boiled down, oversimplified version of why Marsh doesn't apply here, but I think it's enough for a discussion outside of con law class.

I agree that we agree in general. Agreeing is fun.

And Cyber Promotions v. AOL, in particular, is a very good point. This is not a case where clear-cut application of Marsh could stand on its own.

It is, however, nice to see high profile case where Marsh could reasonably come into play for as persuasive authority rather than binding precedent. (Even if the case is about a dumpster fire of a propaganda mill). We haven't seen that question the line of reasoning pushed much beyond the clear lines of the case recently, except in terms of protests in shopping malls and supermarkets (which, more than anything else, seems to have resulted mostly in a formalization of the process by which Girl Scouts can sell cookies in supermarkets in some western states)*.

To be more clear, perhaps I should say: I like Justice Black's reasoning, and I think that as the privatized internet continues to displace the public square we need to take a hard look at where we fall on the balancing act he discusses.

PragerU is objectionable, and I'd bet money they won't win. But the discussion about where the big names of the internet fall on that balancing act is a discussion worth having (even if PragerU's suggested answer is both untenable and idiotic).

*I'm being somewhat glib, but Girl Scout cookie sales being directed into designated free speech zones in supermarkets is certainly a visible and somewhat odd social result of Fashion Valley and similar cases, which in turn make arguments based on Marsh.

For those trying to follow, a summary of my original argument is: when a social media company get so large they basically control a market, we should have laws in place that assures freedom of speech on those sites.

If you're arguing that there "should" be laws, that's a different discussion, and you wouldn't have cited to the Sherman Antitrust Act, because that's a law that exists, not one that should exist. So which is it? Is Google violating an actual law that exists, or do you think the law should change to make what they're doing illegal?

Quote:

We have laws in place that restrict large businesses when they have control of economic markets. We also have laws in place that restrict the right of association for all business. Laws relating to restriction on censorship would be along the same lines.

Yeah, this is a stupidly broad argument that doesn't actually seem to rest on any specific laws. You're talking in generalities because you don't have any clue about the things you're talking about.

But let's go down this road. Should the most popular newspaper in the world be forced to print any letters to the editor that they are sent? No? But...that's centaur's ship! Should the largest advertising firms in the world be forced to make and sell ads for the KKK? No? But...that's centaur's ship! Where's the freeze peach?

I thank you for responding to me without actually being willing to cite to anything. I said that I don't think you're smart enough to avoid the trap of responding without educating yourself to the point that you can cite specifics and actually stop dancing around, and I'll be damned if you didn't help prove me right.

I'm going to take a step back, because I think I see where you are confused. I never stated that google is violating either the Sherman Act or the Civil Rights Act. I state the two exist as examples of laws aimed at restricting the activities of large companies and laws that restrict the freedom of association for businesses. The simple fact that they exist supports my argument.

Nor is the argument about being the most popular, it is about having control of the market. Youtube controls the video market. The control is not 100%, but does vary between 70 and 80%. As such, they can effectively block discussion on any topic they wish in the video market. This concerns me and others. Do we really want to allow corporations to have control of speech or do we want to do something about it?

For those trying to follow, a summary of my original argument is: when a social media company get so large they basically control a market, we should have laws in place that assures freedom of speech on those sites.

If you're arguing that there "should" be laws, that's a different discussion, and you wouldn't have cited to the Sherman Antitrust Act, because that's a law that exists, not one that should exist. So which is it? Is Google violating an actual law that exists, or do you think the law should change to make what they're doing illegal?

Quote:

We have laws in place that restrict large businesses when they have control of economic markets. We also have laws in place that restrict the right of association for all business. Laws relating to restriction on censorship would be along the same lines.

Yeah, this is a stupidly broad argument that doesn't actually seem to rest on any specific laws. You're talking in generalities because you don't have any clue about the things you're talking about.

But let's go down this road. Should the most popular newspaper in the world be forced to print any letters to the editor that they are sent? No? But...that's centaur's ship! Should the largest advertising firms in the world be forced to make and sell ads for the KKK? No? But...that's centaur's ship! Where's the freeze peach?

I thank you for responding to me without actually being willing to cite to anything. I said that I don't think you're smart enough to avoid the trap of responding without educating yourself to the point that you can cite specifics and actually stop dancing around, and I'll be damned if you didn't help prove me right.

I'm going to take a step back, because I think I see where you are confused. I never stated that google is violating either the Sherman Act or the Civil Rights Act. I state the two exist as examples of laws aimed at restricting the activities of large companies and laws that restrict the freedom of association for businesses. The simple fact that they exist supports my argument.

HOW?

Cite the specific passages and relevant case laws that support your argument.

You can't just say "this exists, so my argument is right" and expect to be taken seriously.

For those trying to follow, a summary of my original argument is: when a social media company get so large they basically control a market, we should have laws in place that assures freedom of speech on those sites.

If you're arguing that there "should" be laws, that's a different discussion, and you wouldn't have cited to the Sherman Antitrust Act, because that's a law that exists, not one that should exist. So which is it? Is Google violating an actual law that exists, or do you think the law should change to make what they're doing illegal?

Quote:

We have laws in place that restrict large businesses when they have control of economic markets. We also have laws in place that restrict the right of association for all business. Laws relating to restriction on censorship would be along the same lines.

Yeah, this is a stupidly broad argument that doesn't actually seem to rest on any specific laws. You're talking in generalities because you don't have any clue about the things you're talking about.

But let's go down this road. Should the most popular newspaper in the world be forced to print any letters to the editor that they are sent? No? But...that's centaur's ship! Should the largest advertising firms in the world be forced to make and sell ads for the KKK? No? But...that's centaur's ship! Where's the freeze peach?

I thank you for responding to me without actually being willing to cite to anything. I said that I don't think you're smart enough to avoid the trap of responding without educating yourself to the point that you can cite specifics and actually stop dancing around, and I'll be damned if you didn't help prove me right.

I'm going to take a step back, because I think I see where you are confused. I never stated that google is violating either the Sherman Act or the Civil Rights Act. I state the two exist as examples of laws aimed at restricting the activities of large companies and laws that restrict the freedom of association for businesses. The simple fact that they exist supports my argument.

HOW?

Cite the specific passages and relevant case laws that support your argument.

You can't just say "this exists, so my argument is right" and expect to be taken seriously.

It's common knowledge that the Sherman anti-trust act deals with anti-trust issues. It's even in the title. But since you AH insist, let say sections 1-8 and the break-up of the Bell System.

It is also common knowledge that the civil rights act deals with civil rights, again in the title. But apparently that is lost on you. The portion dealing with employment is TITLE VII. You can Google cases if you want, I'm not going to waste my time.

I'm going to take a step back, because I think I see where you are confused. I never stated that google is violating either the Sherman Act or the Civil Rights Act. I state the two exist as examples of laws aimed at restricting the activities of large companies and laws that restrict the freedom of association for businesses. The simple fact that they exist supports my argument.

That they exist shows some limitations. That doesn't necessarily imply it supports any specific restrictions you propose. You would still need to cite to the laws you're looking at as examples and say "see, this law applies to [x], based on [y], and my proposed law does the same.

Here, let me try to give you an example of how your argument sounds, right now, to me.

The Sherman Antitrust Law protects consumers from monopolistic companies and has been used in the past to try to prevent price increases to consumers, or reverse such price increases. Therefore, I propose a law that the United States sets maximum prices on all goods where there is a sufficiently large monopoly.

See how my proposal takes an insanely broad notion of what Antitrust law does and applies it to something that would likely be found to be unconstitutional for the federal government to legislate? My argument sounds stupid, to me, because I'm ignoring a lot of the specifics of how the law is applied, and ignoring a lot of case law that places limits on the government's ability to regulate markets.

That's the level of specificity that your summary of your argument is at, as I read it.

Quote:

Nor is the argument about being the most popular, it is about having control of the market. Youtube controls the video market. The control is not 100%, but does vary between 70 and 80%. As such, they can effectively block discussion on any topic they wish in the video market. This concerns me and others. Do we really want to allow corporation to have control of speech or do we want to do something about it?

Well, they're not "blocking" it in the first place. They're keeping it off certain sections based on age, presumably because of the content of the video. If that's "blocking", then you're essentially arguing that there is a conspiracy to block free speech of NC-17 movies to children under 17.

The summation of your argument, in the most recent summation you provided basically boils down to 3 arguments:

Some laws exist that place restrictions on businesses when they are monopolies

Civil Rights law exist that limit the right to refuse association based on certain protected classes.

Therefore, we should have laws that limit the right of monopolies to restrict speech that they don't like

The problem with this is that it seems to ignore both the specifics of antitrust law AND civil rights law. You're dealing with general principles, not specifics, and those specifics make all the difference in the world.

If the purpose of antitrust law is to restrict a company from preventing others from entering the market, then you'd need to apply those principles to the question. Yes, YouTube has a large market share. But that's unimportant to whether or not they are doing anything to force that or keep others out. In fact, by having policies that limit some types of speech, it's trivial to argue that they are encouraging competition by forcing that content elsewhere. So you need to make more specific arguments as to why antitrust law is the appropriate remedy, and that would likely require pointing to specific language that would help support the argument that your proposal is in line with the intention of existing antitrust law.

Furthermore, the principles of civil rights that you want to apply aren't applicable to political beliefs (at a federal level, at least). There are some states that protect political affiliation (and more that protect political participation), but the fact is that if you're a Democrat working for a Republican, in most places with at-will employment, you can be fired simply for that. The long jurisprudence of our nation doesn't consider specific beliefs to be protected in the same way that "being white" or "being black" is.

Only by ignoring the intent of the laws, or the specifics of the laws, do your arguments make sense.

So while I'll concede that you didn't intend to say that "Google is violating the law as it stands", your arguments still are so broad that they are effectively irrelevant. Again, you're going to need more specifics to build a coherent argument.

"We have laws against monopolies and laws that limit the right to choose not to associate" is not a carte blanche to justify any law regarding the limitation of the freedom of association for any monopoly.

So, let's start somewhere simple: propose a specific outline for your proposed law. We don't even have to get into justification at this point, just try to outline exactly what you're proposing. Not at a super-general level. Try to be specific, as that's what matters here.

For those trying to follow, a summary of my original argument is: when a social media company get so large they basically control a market, we should have laws in place that assures freedom of speech on those sites.

If you're arguing that there "should" be laws, that's a different discussion, and you wouldn't have cited to the Sherman Antitrust Act, because that's a law that exists, not one that should exist. So which is it? Is Google violating an actual law that exists, or do you think the law should change to make what they're doing illegal?

Quote:

We have laws in place that restrict large businesses when they have control of economic markets. We also have laws in place that restrict the right of association for all business. Laws relating to restriction on censorship would be along the same lines.

Yeah, this is a stupidly broad argument that doesn't actually seem to rest on any specific laws. You're talking in generalities because you don't have any clue about the things you're talking about.

But let's go down this road. Should the most popular newspaper in the world be forced to print any letters to the editor that they are sent? No? But...that's centaur's ship! Should the largest advertising firms in the world be forced to make and sell ads for the KKK? No? But...that's centaur's ship! Where's the freeze peach?

I thank you for responding to me without actually being willing to cite to anything. I said that I don't think you're smart enough to avoid the trap of responding without educating yourself to the point that you can cite specifics and actually stop dancing around, and I'll be damned if you didn't help prove me right.

I'm going to take a step back, because I think I see where you are confused. I never stated that google is violating either the Sherman Act or the Civil Rights Act. I state the two exist as examples of laws aimed at restricting the activities of large companies and laws that restrict the freedom of association for businesses. The simple fact that they exist supports my argument.

HOW?

Cite the specific passages and relevant case laws that support your argument.

You can't just say "this exists, so my argument is right" and expect to be taken seriously.

It's common knowledge that the Sherman anti-trust act deals with anti-trust issues. It's even in the title. But since you AH insist, let say sections 1-8 and the break-up of the Bell System.

It is also common knowledge that the civil rights act deals with civil rights, again in the title. But apparently that is lost on you. The portion dealing with employment is TITLE VII. You can Google cases if you want, I'm not going to waste my time.

You're wasting everyone's time. You're making an argument that you claim is supported, but you aren't providing any specific citations to support it. Just do that. That's all we're asking. Cite the specific passages and applicable case laws that you think support your argument, because this condescending attitude doesn't work when you haven't actually demonstrated that you understand anything at all about either act or how they pertain to the claims you're making.

I wonder how many people here have actually viewed any of the videos. I know one or two did, but I suspect most did not. The ones I saw were well done.

Their videos are slick, but the ones I've seen are terribly misleading.

That doesn't justify censoring them, and I find the willingness of liberals to jump on the censorship bandwagon pretty terrifying. These sorts of measures swing both ways, and tomorrow it may be someone I like being censored.

To jump on the "censorship bandwagon" requires deeming action by private companies actionable "censorship", a position self-identified conservatives have staunchly opposed for decades.

Blaming liberals for "bandwagoning" when they're just supporting the legal regime already used against them is naive. Many liberals are accepting of this because they've already been experiencing it for decades now and are used to living in a legal system with these limitations, and you conservatives were comfortable allowing it to be used to suppress liberals up to the point it got used against you too.

You're deep in the "us-vs.-them" mindset. You've mistakenly called me a conservative, simply because I'm criticizing censorship of a conservative YouTube channel. I'm not comfortable with conservatives censoring liberals. The only way you'd get that idea is because of your own partisanship.

If you're comfortable with giving Google the ability to censor sources it dislikes, I'll tell you what's going to happen. Eventually, Google's paymasters, the companies that buy advertising, are going to be the ones determining what gets censored. How comfortable would you be with Pfizer or Siemens determining what videos or search hits get boosted and which get hidden on the world's dominant search engine or video platform?

Oh, your MBA? How awe-inspiring. I'm certain your education for that is in every way equivalent to actual legal training. You're digging deeper into Dunning-Kruger and you don't even know it.

Quote:

But instead of trying to actually discuss this in a rational manner you want to keep putting up false roadblocks and smokescreens.

Asking you to substantiate the claim that you made is a "smokescreen"? Yeah, okay kiddo.

Quote:

Most people here know that anti-trust laws exist and there address market behavior of large corporations. (as well as some other behaviors).

The existence of these laws isn't in question. You have claimed they apply to this case. I have asked you to substantiate that with specific references. You have, like a coward, refused to do so, and called me asking for specifics a "smokescreen".

Quote:

Most here know that anti-discrimination laws exists and they address issues relating to hiring and some other issue. We don't need that clause and line to discuss my suggestion.

Well, as you've demonstrated you don't actually understand those things, it might be helpful if you actually did, because you clearly don't understand them.

Quote:

You are just putting up false blocks because you have no legitimate argument.

My argument is that you need to cite to a specific part of the law before anyone can even discuss whether your claim has any merit. That you're too chickenshit to do so is your own fault, sunshine, not mine. You cite the specifics, and I'm happy to either agree or refute with actual citations myself.

That's fine. Ignoring me doesn't stop me from refuting your complete lack of knowledge. I don't think that you have the intellect or introspection necessary to educate yourself. Ignoring me accomplishes nothing, as my real audience is other people who read your drivel. They'll know how dumb you look, regardless of whether you read it.

Quote:

FYI: trying to hide insults in obscure terms is lame.

It's a fairly well known term that describes someone with a low amount of information on a subject being disproportionately certain that their interpretation of something is accurate. By converse, someone actually well-educated on something is more likely to understand the complexity of a subject, and recognize the limits of their knowledge.

Sort of like, I don't know...a person claiming their MBA education is superior to actual legal education and practice? And steadfastly insisting they're correct, despite not having the intellectual honesty or courage to actually go look things up for themselves?

The funny thing is that you have been a fantastic opportunity to prove me wrong. I don't think you're smart enough to avoid the trap of responding without educating yourself to the point that you can cite specifics and actually stop dancing around.

Care to prove me wrong?

You STILL have not tried to refute my initial argument. You keep trying to redirect the discussion away from the original topic. While I don't have legal training, I do know that redirecting an argument away from a losing position is a common tactic.

For those trying to follow, a summary of my original argument is: when a social media company get so large they basically control a market, we should have laws in place that assures freedom of speech on those sites. We have laws in place that restrict large businesses when they have control of economic markets. We also have laws in place that restrict the right of association for all business. Laws relating to restriction on censorship would be along the same lines.

I think what you mean is, we should have laws that prevent large businesses from accruing and abusing monopolistic levels of market power that allow them to effectively unilaterally censor or control individual/customer activity. Because that's just phrasing the same problem differently, in a way that highlights the solution that already exists: Antitrust laws.

Laws "restricting censorship" are only necessary if you've already skipped the first step, which is deciding whether to allow the monopoly to exist. If you break up the monopoly, no one entity has a concentration of power to wield at anyone.

If you're comfortable with giving Google the ability to censor sources it dislikes, I'll tell you what's going to happen. Eventually, Google's paymasters, the companies that buy advertising, are going to be the ones determining what gets censored. How comfortable would you be with Pfizer or Siemens determining what videos or search hits get boosted and which get hidden on the world's dominant search engine or video platform?

Well, I am a conservative, and again, I don't have a problem with that .I have a much, much bigger problem with declaring private property to be subject to any whims of the public.

To put it simply, I'm comfortable with YouTube restricting pro-conservative voices at the behest of Pfizer because that acts as a natural deterrent to use YouTube. As long as YouTube doesn't abuse their monopoly to prevent others from entering the market, any action they take to limit content is solved by a free-market solution of a new "open" video provider. If the government acts to intervene to say that, for example, YouTube must host pro-white supremacist content, even if it doesn't want to, it is a violation of the Takings Clause, as far as I'm concerned. And if the government can do it, there is no relief for YouTube other than to shut down entirely.

That is the danger of government solutions: they bring to bear the power of the sovereign to effectively control private property. That's far, far more dangerous a precedent than allowing a company to stifle some speech, thereby encouraging competitors to rise.

If/when Google acts in ways to harm those competitors from competing fairly, we have laws to slap them down for doing so. That is the appropriate delegation of power.

I will always fear government control over the profit-driven goals of a corporation. As long as you have sufficient safeguards to ensure an actual free market (I'm not one of the libertarian acolytes who thinks that a regulation-free marketplace is actually inherently "free"), then issues like this are self-correcting. If white supremacists want to start NoJew-Tube so that they can post freely, they can, and should. If their ideas find traction in the marketplace of ideas, they will survive. If not, they won't.

If you're comfortable with giving Google the ability to censor sources it dislikes, I'll tell you what's going to happen. Eventually, Google's paymasters, the companies that buy advertising, are going to be the ones determining what gets censored. How comfortable would you be with Pfizer or Siemens determining what videos or search hits get boosted and which get hidden on the world's dominant search engine or video platform?

Paid advertisements are ALREADY promoted on Google (though marked as such) and played in front of YouTube videos. If Google starts providing results I find less useful than those I see on Bing, then I'll switch to Bing.

How comfortable would you be if Pfizer or Siemens paid Walmart to promote their products via placement or advertising in their fliers?

Except the baker isn't being asked to participate in an event, they're being asked to bake a cake. And if they advertise to the general public that they bake cakes, they have to sell those cakes to the general public. It's that simple, that's how the law actually works, and the law ignores the "event" because cake baking has nothing to do with the event where it's happening.

Have you ever gone in a bakery and picked out a cake, and been asked, "Before I sell this to you, what's it for?" Ever?

Cute. But seriously... bakeries have been making cakes for a very long time for a variety of events, and nobody has ever confused cake-baking with event participation before.

Serious question, I want your actual serious answer to: If a mixed-race couple came in to buy a birthday cake, and the baker said, "I'm sorry, I don't participate in birthdays for interracial children," does refusing the cake sale actually have anything to do with the boy's birthday party? In what way is this not just "refusing to sell a cake to an interracial couple" which is illegal?

As the law is currently interpreted both.... And and both people are probably jerks. But many artisans consider there work as an extension of them... So the cake participating in the wedding is the same as them participating. Look at other more liberal artists such as the Rolling Stones.. They didn't perform or write songs specifically for a Trump ralley , but when one of their disks was plopped in for a ralley they were really offended. Their work their songs their voice were being used to support something they didn't believe in. I really see no difference other then record producers have lobbiests writing copyright law and individual bakers don't.

The Rolling Stones do not operate a public storefront or advertise "hear songs from The Rolling Stones at your wedding!" They do not have standard prices posted for 10, 20, or 60 minute performances. You can't walk into their store and get a sample live riff, and then decide to check out and buy a live performance right then and there.

It has nothing to do with "conservative" or "liberal", it has to do with whether you choose to offer your goods and services to the general public. You get benefits from doing so, including the ability to advertise and promote yourself freely; society just expects something in return, which includes an understanding that "the general public" means the entire general public. Blacks and gays are citizens too, they are part of the "general public", either you sell to the whole public or you don't.

Artisans who care about their art and its message can operate privately and selectively. That's what the Rolling Stones do. A baker can choose to do that too if they want, and refuse every gay couple that comes near them. They just lose the additional business that comes with a public storefront.

1) Violate his confidence2) Give up a significant revenue stream (aka be poor)3) Give up one hard earned skill set completely.

Like heck he isn't being forced he is told to comply or have his livelihood taken away.

Okay, right. A person has to comply with civil rights laws or give up their profession. This is exactly the same set up as Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. There, a motel was forced to serve black guests even though they really, really didn't want to.

They could comply, they could give up a revenue stream, or they could get out of the business entirely. And the Supreme Court ruled that this risk was insufficient to overcome the civil rights protections afforded to black citizens. Because they were discriminating based on a protected class, their actions were illegal, and they had to either serve the customers or get out of business.

So, in the states where the cases that people are talking about occurred, sexual preference IS a protected class, on equal standing with race.

The analysis doesn't change. The fact that you are forced to do something that you don't want isn't sufficient reason to violate the civil rights of a protected class.

For those trying to follow, a summary of my original argument is: when a social media company get so large they basically control a market, we should have laws in place that assures freedom of speech on those sites.

If you're arguing that there "should" be laws, that's a different discussion, and you wouldn't have cited to the Sherman Antitrust Act, because that's a law that exists, not one that should exist. So which is it? Is Google violating an actual law that exists, or do you think the law should change to make what they're doing illegal?

Quote:

We have laws in place that restrict large businesses when they have control of economic markets. We also have laws in place that restrict the right of association for all business. Laws relating to restriction on censorship would be along the same lines.

Yeah, this is a stupidly broad argument that doesn't actually seem to rest on any specific laws. You're talking in generalities because you don't have any clue about the things you're talking about.

But let's go down this road. Should the most popular newspaper in the world be forced to print any letters to the editor that they are sent? No? But...that's centaur's ship! Should the largest advertising firms in the world be forced to make and sell ads for the KKK? No? But...that's centaur's ship! Where's the freeze peach?

I thank you for responding to me without actually being willing to cite to anything. I said that I don't think you're smart enough to avoid the trap of responding without educating yourself to the point that you can cite specifics and actually stop dancing around, and I'll be damned if you didn't help prove me right.

I'm going to take a step back, because I think I see where you are confused. I never stated that google is violating either the Sherman Act or the Civil Rights Act. I state the two exist as examples of laws aimed at restricting the activities of large companies and laws that restrict the freedom of association for businesses. The simple fact that they exist supports my argument.

Nor is the argument about being the most popular, it is about having control of the market. Youtube controls the video market. The control is not 100%, but does vary between 70 and 80%. As such, they can effectively block discussion on any topic they wish in the video market. This concerns me and others. Do we really want to allow corporations to have control of speech or do we want to do something about it?

"Some laws exist" is not sufficient justification for why your proposed other, different law should exist. You get that, right?

For those trying to follow, a summary of my original argument is: when a social media company get so large they basically control a market, we should have laws in place that assures freedom of speech on those sites.

If you're arguing that there "should" be laws, that's a different discussion, and you wouldn't have cited to the Sherman Antitrust Act, because that's a law that exists, not one that should exist. So which is it? Is Google violating an actual law that exists, or do you think the law should change to make what they're doing illegal?

Quote:

We have laws in place that restrict large businesses when they have control of economic markets. We also have laws in place that restrict the right of association for all business. Laws relating to restriction on censorship would be along the same lines.

Yeah, this is a stupidly broad argument that doesn't actually seem to rest on any specific laws. You're talking in generalities because you don't have any clue about the things you're talking about.

But let's go down this road. Should the most popular newspaper in the world be forced to print any letters to the editor that they are sent? No? But...that's centaur's ship! Should the largest advertising firms in the world be forced to make and sell ads for the KKK? No? But...that's centaur's ship! Where's the freeze peach?

I thank you for responding to me without actually being willing to cite to anything. I said that I don't think you're smart enough to avoid the trap of responding without educating yourself to the point that you can cite specifics and actually stop dancing around, and I'll be damned if you didn't help prove me right.

I'm going to take a step back, because I think I see where you are confused. I never stated that google is violating either the Sherman Act or the Civil Rights Act. I state the two exist as examples of laws aimed at restricting the activities of large companies and laws that restrict the freedom of association for businesses. The simple fact that they exist supports my argument.

HOW?

Cite the specific passages and relevant case laws that support your argument.

You can't just say "this exists, so my argument is right" and expect to be taken seriously.

It's common knowledge that the Sherman anti-trust act deals with anti-trust issues. It's even in the title. But since you AH insist, let say sections 1-8 and the break-up of the Bell System.

It is also common knowledge that the civil rights act deals with civil rights, again in the title. But apparently that is lost on you. The portion dealing with employment is TITLE VII. You can Google cases if you want, I'm not going to waste my time.

Not a single person here is having trouble understanding what laws you mean. We all know what the Sherman Act and CRA are.

What nobody gets is, what in or about the Sherman Act or CRA justifies this new third thing you're proposing? Because that's the thing you keep refusing to say.

Oh, your MBA? How awe-inspiring. I'm certain your education for that is in every way equivalent to actual legal training. You're digging deeper into Dunning-Kruger and you don't even know it.

Quote:

But instead of trying to actually discuss this in a rational manner you want to keep putting up false roadblocks and smokescreens.

Asking you to substantiate the claim that you made is a "smokescreen"? Yeah, okay kiddo.

Quote:

Most people here know that anti-trust laws exist and there address market behavior of large corporations. (as well as some other behaviors).

The existence of these laws isn't in question. You have claimed they apply to this case. I have asked you to substantiate that with specific references. You have, like a coward, refused to do so, and called me asking for specifics a "smokescreen".

Quote:

Most here know that anti-discrimination laws exists and they address issues relating to hiring and some other issue. We don't need that clause and line to discuss my suggestion.

Well, as you've demonstrated you don't actually understand those things, it might be helpful if you actually did, because you clearly don't understand them.

Quote:

You are just putting up false blocks because you have no legitimate argument.

My argument is that you need to cite to a specific part of the law before anyone can even discuss whether your claim has any merit. That you're too chickenshit to do so is your own fault, sunshine, not mine. You cite the specifics, and I'm happy to either agree or refute with actual citations myself.

That's fine. Ignoring me doesn't stop me from refuting your complete lack of knowledge. I don't think that you have the intellect or introspection necessary to educate yourself. Ignoring me accomplishes nothing, as my real audience is other people who read your drivel. They'll know how dumb you look, regardless of whether you read it.

Quote:

FYI: trying to hide insults in obscure terms is lame.

It's a fairly well known term that describes someone with a low amount of information on a subject being disproportionately certain that their interpretation of something is accurate. By converse, someone actually well-educated on something is more likely to understand the complexity of a subject, and recognize the limits of their knowledge.

Sort of like, I don't know...a person claiming their MBA education is superior to actual legal education and practice? And steadfastly insisting they're correct, despite not having the intellectual honesty or courage to actually go look things up for themselves?

The funny thing is that you have been a fantastic opportunity to prove me wrong. I don't think you're smart enough to avoid the trap of responding without educating yourself to the point that you can cite specifics and actually stop dancing around.

Care to prove me wrong?

You STILL have not tried to refute my initial argument. You keep trying to redirect the discussion away from the original topic. While I don't have legal training, I do know that redirecting an argument away from a losing position is a common tactic.

For those trying to follow, a summary of my original argument is: when a social media company get so large they basically control a market, we should have laws in place that assures freedom of speech on those sites. We have laws in place that restrict large businesses when they have control of economic markets. We also have laws in place that restrict the right of association for all business. Laws relating to restriction on censorship would be along the same lines.

I think what you mean is, we should have laws that prevent large businesses from accruing and abusing monopolistic levels of market power that allow them to effectively unilaterally censor or control individual/customer activity. Because that's just phrasing the same problem differently, in a way that highlights the solution that already exists: Antitrust laws.

Laws "restricting censorship" are only necessary if you've already skipped the first step, which is deciding whether to allow the monopoly to exist. If you break up the monopoly, no one entity has a concentration of power to wield at anyone.

Lets not forget that what youtube is doing is not even censorship in any real meaning of the word, legally, and practically.

If the conservative viewpoint is "people should be able to say what they want, whenever they want, wherever they want, without any repercussions both socially or legally" then you must also be ok, hell, even supportive of the kneeling football players, for instance.

Except the baker isn't being asked to participate in an event, they're being asked to bake a cake. And if they advertise to the general public that they bake cakes, they have to sell those cakes to the general public. It's that simple, that's how the law actually works, and the law ignores the "event" because cake baking has nothing to do with the event where it's happening.

Have you ever gone in a bakery and picked out a cake, and been asked, "Before I sell this to you, what's it for?" Ever?

Cute. But seriously... bakeries have been making cakes for a very long time for a variety of events, and nobody has ever confused cake-baking with event participation before.

Serious question, I want your actual serious answer to: If a mixed-race couple came in to buy a birthday cake, and the baker said, "I'm sorry, I don't participate in birthdays for interracial children," does refusing the cake sale actually have anything to do with the boy's birthday party? In what way is this not just "refusing to sell a cake to an interracial couple" which is illegal?

As the law is currently interpreted both.... And and both people are probably jerks. But many artisans consider there work as an extension of them... So the cake participating in the wedding is the same as them participating. Look at other more liberal artists such as the Rolling Stones.. They didn't perform or write songs specifically for a Trump ralley , but when one of their disks was plopped in for a ralley they were really offended. Their work their songs their voice were being used to support something they didn't believe in. I really see no difference other then record producers have lobbiests writing copyright law and individual bakers don't.

The Rolling Stones do not operate a public storefront or advertise "hear songs from The Rolling Stones at your wedding!" They do not have standard prices posted for 10, 20, or 60 minute performances. You can't walk into their store and get a sample live riff, and then decide to check out and buy a live performance right then and there.

It has nothing to do with "conservative" or "liberal", it has to do with whether you choose to offer your goods and services to the general public. You get benefits from doing so, including the ability to advertise and promote yourself freely; society just expects something in return, which includes an understanding that "the general public" means the entire general public. Blacks and gays are citizens too, they are part of the "general public", either you sell to the whole public or you don't.

Artisans who care about their art and its message can operate privately and selectively. That's what the Rolling Stones do. A baker can choose to do that too if they want, and refuse every gay couple that comes near them. They just lose the additional business that comes with a public storefront.

I was making the point that artists do care about where their work is performed or displayed... And that it wasn't a partisan issue...

Infact I would say the baker has a stronger emotional/personal connection to his cake then the rolling Stones to a pressed disk. Because the cake is a one off bespoke "masterpiece" for a specific event... The disk is a mass produced product sold to faceless masses. Ergo the baker is participating in the event or feels as such. (Though the law probably couldnt care less about that fact)